On 26 April 1894 the Sheffield Evening Telegraph ran article that stated:
I notice that the prospectus of the Manchester City Football Club is out. From one which I received yesterday, I find rather a significant sentence:- "The management of this company is in the hands of directors who have not been officially connected with the Ardwick Football Club."
As I see it, Manchester City is more like AFC Wimbledon as both Ardwick and Manchester City existed at the same time in the same manner that Wimbledon and AFC Wimbledon did, and Manchester City and AFC Wimbledon have catfished Ardwick's and Wimbledon's previous history.
The evidence indicates that four of the founding directors of the new company, Holden, Hayes, Strachan and Prowse, had previously been members of the Ardwick committee, so the statement in the prospectus appears to be stretching the truth somewhat. I think the key thing here is that they wanted to ensure the new company wasn't liable for Ardwick's debts, hence the disclaimer.
And therein lies the disconnect. When Arsenal incorporated as a limited company in 1893, the assets, including the players' registrations, and liabilities of Royal Arsenal FC were transferred to The Woolwich Arsenal Football And Athletic Company, Limited. All except one of the committee members at the end of the 1892-93 season became directors of the limited company during the summer of 1893 (William Jackson had always stated he was opposed to incorporation as far back as 1891). Despite incorporation, a name change and a new ground there was a continual connection.
There doesn't seem to be that connection between Ardwick and Manchester City. They were two separate teams that existed at the same time, albeit for a matter of days, but Ardwick went out of existence.
When Arsenal moved in 1893, a new club called Royal Ordnance Factories FC was formed by some men that had previously been on Royal Arsenal FC's committee (being ousted in 1892). They played on the ground that Royal Arsenal FC had played on between 1890-93 and signed some players that had previously played for Royal Arsenal. That didn't make Royal Ordnance Factories FC the continuation of Royal Arsenal FC.
Interesting about Arsenal. But there are two further reasons why I believe Ardwick was the same club as Manchester City.
Firstly, Manchester City did not take part in the 1894-95 FA Cup. The reason for this is that the club had already paid is dues as Ardwick for the 1894-95 season. Before the 1894 FA AGM, Ardwick had proposed a motion that would have stripped the FA of its control of the professional game. Although Ardwick didn't offically exist by the time of the AGM, the Manchester City secretary, Joshua Parlby (formerly the Ardwick secretary), represented them. The FA, clearly believing Ardwick and Manchester City were one and the same, did not then allow them to pay their dues again as Manchester City.
The other important factor is the reaction of the fans. I've read the diaries of Charles Frederick Hyde, the head brewer of Chesters Brewery. He was a big fan of the club (he appears in a 1892 club photo) and made several references to them in his diaries which began in 1890. He doesn't even mention the transition from Ardwick to City, and I believe the reason is that he didn't think it was any importance. I've also never come across a single reference from an Ardwick fan complaining about the disappearance of their club, which I believe indicates that they viewed City as a continuation of the same club.
I'm guessing they had a lawyer look at the wording. Chapman reportedly provided funds to the club from 1889 onwards but it's not clear if he was on the Ardwick committee. But as the majority of the founding shareholders were not officially connected to Ardwick, I suspect they felt that the phrase 'in the hands of' could be justified if it ever went to court.
As Ardwick was a members club, every member of its committee from 1890 onwards was personally liable for an equal share of the debt after they were sued by Chesters Brewery (there were typically twelve committee members at any one time). So Furniss would have been forced to pay off some of the debt personally. The part about postponing his wedding might well be true (but who knows, maybe he got cold feet and was using it as an excuse?). Furniss was the son of a railway worker and at that time was an employee at the Union Iron works in West Gorton, so it's likely this did put major strain on his finances.
Hi Andrew. That makes sense. Thanks for clarifying. And let me add that your articles are really interesting. Best wishes from a danish City Supporter.
On 26 April 1894 the Sheffield Evening Telegraph ran article that stated:
I notice that the prospectus of the Manchester City Football Club is out. From one which I received yesterday, I find rather a significant sentence:- "The management of this company is in the hands of directors who have not been officially connected with the Ardwick Football Club."
As I see it, Manchester City is more like AFC Wimbledon as both Ardwick and Manchester City existed at the same time in the same manner that Wimbledon and AFC Wimbledon did, and Manchester City and AFC Wimbledon have catfished Ardwick's and Wimbledon's previous history.
The evidence indicates that four of the founding directors of the new company, Holden, Hayes, Strachan and Prowse, had previously been members of the Ardwick committee, so the statement in the prospectus appears to be stretching the truth somewhat. I think the key thing here is that they wanted to ensure the new company wasn't liable for Ardwick's debts, hence the disclaimer.
And therein lies the disconnect. When Arsenal incorporated as a limited company in 1893, the assets, including the players' registrations, and liabilities of Royal Arsenal FC were transferred to The Woolwich Arsenal Football And Athletic Company, Limited. All except one of the committee members at the end of the 1892-93 season became directors of the limited company during the summer of 1893 (William Jackson had always stated he was opposed to incorporation as far back as 1891). Despite incorporation, a name change and a new ground there was a continual connection.
There doesn't seem to be that connection between Ardwick and Manchester City. They were two separate teams that existed at the same time, albeit for a matter of days, but Ardwick went out of existence.
When Arsenal moved in 1893, a new club called Royal Ordnance Factories FC was formed by some men that had previously been on Royal Arsenal FC's committee (being ousted in 1892). They played on the ground that Royal Arsenal FC had played on between 1890-93 and signed some players that had previously played for Royal Arsenal. That didn't make Royal Ordnance Factories FC the continuation of Royal Arsenal FC.
Interesting about Arsenal. But there are two further reasons why I believe Ardwick was the same club as Manchester City.
Firstly, Manchester City did not take part in the 1894-95 FA Cup. The reason for this is that the club had already paid is dues as Ardwick for the 1894-95 season. Before the 1894 FA AGM, Ardwick had proposed a motion that would have stripped the FA of its control of the professional game. Although Ardwick didn't offically exist by the time of the AGM, the Manchester City secretary, Joshua Parlby (formerly the Ardwick secretary), represented them. The FA, clearly believing Ardwick and Manchester City were one and the same, did not then allow them to pay their dues again as Manchester City.
The other important factor is the reaction of the fans. I've read the diaries of Charles Frederick Hyde, the head brewer of Chesters Brewery. He was a big fan of the club (he appears in a 1892 club photo) and made several references to them in his diaries which began in 1890. He doesn't even mention the transition from Ardwick to City, and I believe the reason is that he didn't think it was any importance. I've also never come across a single reference from an Ardwick fan complaining about the disappearance of their club, which I believe indicates that they viewed City as a continuation of the same club.
I'm guessing they had a lawyer look at the wording. Chapman reportedly provided funds to the club from 1889 onwards but it's not clear if he was on the Ardwick committee. But as the majority of the founding shareholders were not officially connected to Ardwick, I suspect they felt that the phrase 'in the hands of' could be justified if it ever went to court.
Thank you for a well written article on a subject I have often thought about.
However, I have read that Furniss paid the club's debt and thus had to postpone his wedding? Is it a myth? Or where does that come into the picture?
As Ardwick was a members club, every member of its committee from 1890 onwards was personally liable for an equal share of the debt after they were sued by Chesters Brewery (there were typically twelve committee members at any one time). So Furniss would have been forced to pay off some of the debt personally. The part about postponing his wedding might well be true (but who knows, maybe he got cold feet and was using it as an excuse?). Furniss was the son of a railway worker and at that time was an employee at the Union Iron works in West Gorton, so it's likely this did put major strain on his finances.
Hi Andrew. That makes sense. Thanks for clarifying. And let me add that your articles are really interesting. Best wishes from a danish City Supporter.